New Zealand confronts violent past, gives new hope to Maori

[Lite Beer]

New Zealand confronts violent past, gives new hope to Maori
By NICK PERRY

WAITANGI, New Zealand (AP) — Their land was confiscated, their homes burned down and many of their people killed.

Now, 150 years later, the indigenous Ngai Tuhoe tribe in New Zealand is getting a new start. The government has apologized for its past atrocities, handed over 170 million New Zealand dollars ($128 million) and agreed the tribe should manage a sprawling, rugged national park it calls home.

Last year's settlement is one of dozens the government has signed with Maori tribes in a comprehensive, multi-billion dollar process described in a U.N. report as imperfect but nevertheless "one of the most important examples in the world of an effort to address historical and ongoing grievances of indigenous peoples."

The payouts have transformed some of the tribes into major economic players in a nation where Maori make up 15 percent of the country's 4.5 million people. They have also contributed to a broader cultural renaissance and improved prospects for Maori.

Tamiti Kruger, who led the negotiations for the Tuhoe tribe, or "iwi," said the settlement provoked great emotion, especially for older tribal members.

"They could not believe that they would be alive in a time when they would witness the return of their homeland," he said.

The settlements are the result of legal claims brought by tribes against the government for breaches of the nation's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.

The 1840 agreement effectively handed Britain sovereignty of New Zealand while guaranteeing Maori certain rights over traditional land and fisheries. Versions in Maori and English stated different things, and the treaty's implications, including whether Maori ever willingly ceded sovereignty, continue to be debated.

Soon after the treaty was signed, conflicts between Maori and white settlers over who owned land escalated into a war that killed hundreds of Maori warriors and British troops.

The government began settling claims a quarter century ago, apologizing for its past actions. Some whites argued the nation would go broke, and some Maori said it wasn't fair the government, a party to the negotiations, also got to dictate the terms, something the U.N. report cited as a flaw.

But a broad consensus has grown among lawmakers and Maori leaders that the process is working. Te Ururoa Flavell, New Zealand's Maori development minister, said the settlements have not only righted wrongs, but have also lifted Maori confidence.

With the finish line in sight, the pace of settlements has picked up. The government has signed 72 agreements and hopes to sign the final one by 2017.

The settlements appear to be improving the economic and social standing of Maori, who still lag behind white New Zealanders on many social measures. Maori have higher-than-average incarceration rates and a 12 percent unemployment rate, compared to a 4 percent rate for white New Zealanders. But the number of Maori who earned at least a bachelor's degree rose 56 percent between 2006 and 2013.

"All of the stats that we see are that Maori, in pretty much every measure, from longevity to participation in schools, are improving," said Prime Minister John Key. "And where the settlements have been, and where those iwi have had those resources, I think you can point to a faster improvement."

Not all the tribes have used their settlements wisely. The small Ngati Tama tribe lost almost all its NZ$14.5 million settlements on bad investments in a computer software company and a fishing venture. Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said there is no chance of a do-over.

"The right to make their own decisions also means the right to mess things up," he said.

The Waikato-Tainui, the first big tribe to settle when it accepted NZ$170 million in 1995, has seen its fortunes yo-yo.

The tribe initially lost millions after making bad investments in foreign hotels and a rugby-league franchise, and its leaders were criticized for excessive spending on frivolous things like box seats at sports stadiums.

"People were burned over that," said the tribe's current chief executive, Parekawhia McLean. "But we have learned our lessons and have continued to grow."

After the losses, the tribe took a more rigorous approach to managing its money and clearly separated its entrepreneurial and distribution sides, she said. Through investments primarily in property, the tribe has parlayed its settlement into more than NZ$1 billion.

The tribe distributes millions of dollars each year to its 56,000 members in grants for education, health and cultural activities, McLean said. These are not hand-outs, she said, but rather "hand ups" that will improve their lives through targeting specific needs.

The Ngai Tahu tribe also has turned its NZ$170 million settlement into over NZ$1 billion, thanks to investments in health care, property, farms and fishing ventures.

Tessa Gregory, a 22-year-old commercial painter, said the tribe helped cover a 14-week training course that enabled her to find work.

"Ngai Tahu was there from the beginning and they're still there," she said.

The impact of Maori tribes on New Zealand's economy is far greater than that of Native American tribes on the U.S. economy, said Stephen Cornell, a professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. Yet, Native Americans have more political power than the Maori, he said.

While some U.S. tribes have developed resources like gas reserves and casinos, Native Americans, who account for just 1.5 percent of the population, continue to lag far behind average Americans across most socio-economic measures. Cornell said one difference is that Native Americans have more political power than the Maori, as the U.S. treats them as separate legal entities or governments.

Some Maori advocate greater legal status for tribes, but Finlayson said he didn't think a U.S.-style system would be welcomed in New Zealand. He said Maori tribes could take greater control over certain functions like welfare and employment training.

The settlements have cost NZ$1.6 billion so far, a figure Finlayson said could rise to NZ$3 billion. The government has yet to reach agreement with Ngapuhi, the country's biggest tribe with 126,000 members and the most complex to deal with because of its many factions.

Tamiti, the Tuhoe negotiator, said his tribe's settlement has helped heal generations of hatred between the tribe and the government.

"New Zealanders are to be commended for confronting their history," he said. "It's entirely untrue that you can't change the past."

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-15

[Rancid]

A lot of ugly things happened in US, Australia, NZ and other countries when they were taken over by European colonialism.

Seems that a little honesty and a genuine attempt to offset some of the damage is a good thing.

[Bangkok Herps]

This is some fantastically good news. I pray that it can happen in other places too.

[Seastallion]

This is some fantastically good news. I pray that it can happen in other places too.

Yes, NZ has done well. I hope all the nations of the United Nations will take note that peace is possible with fair and honest negotiation.

NZ is undoubtedly the most harmonious multi-cultural place I have ever lived.

[Lissos]

As with nearly all these thingss, history records as much collaboration with foreign settlers as there was resistance, either for personal gain, or embracing foreign methods or in order to create alliances with settlers in order to vanquish their old tribal enemies. If New Zealand is to accept its psat history, I hope it will accept all that too because they don't appear to have done so in the case of North America. The narrative continues to be that the White man brought destruction to an otherwise idyylic land where no conflict or atrocity existed, and that resistance to settlers was immediate, unbroken and total unity against foreign ways and peoples characterised it from start to finish. It didn't. It applies not only to those parts of the world, but also to India and most of the examples that are dragged up as something to bash the white man about.

[Bwanatickey]

New Zealand only has one Religion, and it is a code they obey, it's their God.

Rugby.

[Seastallion]

As with nearly all these thingss, history records as much collaboration with foreign settlers as there was resistance, either for personal gain, or embracing foreign methods or in order to create alliances with settlers in order to vanquish their old tribal enemies. If New Zealand is to accept its psat history, I hope it will accept all that too because they don't appear to have done so in the case of North America. The narrative continues to be that the White man brought destruction to an otherwise idyylic land where no conflict or atrocity existed, and that resistance to settlers was immediate, unbroken and total unity against foreign ways and peoples characterised it from start to finish. It didn't. It applies not only to those parts of the world, but also to India and most of the examples that are dragged up as something to bash the white man about.

I don't think NZ holds a romanticised view of it's past. The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in all sorts of facets of NZ life, from school to local bodies, to laws. The atrocities are acknowledged, the things you bring up are recognised.

As with nearly all these things, the white man or coloniser did indeed end up with the bigger slice of the pie, so the white man or coloniser (they weren't always white) deserves a bit of criticism.

Fiji is perhaps the shining exception. Colonised by the British, wise men drew up a constitution that to this day has protected native rights. Despite a few military coups and changes to the constitution, the original aim of it remains. Only 5% of the total land area is freehold. Nobody, not even indigenous Fijians, can buy any other land; it is either government land or native land held in trust. The native land remains with the tribes for their perpetual use and they can never sell it.

[lvr181]

"15% Maori"? Full blood or perhaps with as little as a "token" amount Maori blood in them?

[empireboy]

New Zealand only has one Religion, and it is a code they obey, it's their God.

Rugby.

Speaking as a Kiwi, I can confirm absolutely that this is NOT the case. I'm most definitely a cricket, tennis and soccer man myself.... Not sure where you get your information but check the source!

[empireboy]

Tremendous progress. Kia ora!

[dragonfly94]

when I was in NZ I was told by expats, locals and Maori that there were no full blood Maori left, so either an awful lot of raping went on or the past was not as oppressive as some now like to make out. Many in NZ seem to feel the maori get too much of a good deal today. The good thing about them is they tend to conserve the land and protect it from over development. Hopefully one day the whining will stop and everyone will call themselves New Zealanders, Maori history is hardly anything to shout about.

[FangFerang]

The goods Kiwis are leading the world on thisd one! The natives from the US, Japan, China and Australia were not only given a raw deal, they were told to shut up and put up with it.

Good on New Zealand!

[Cats4ever]

As with nearly all these thingss, history records as much collaboration with foreign settlers as there was resistance, either for personal gain, or embracing foreign methods or in order to create alliances with settlers in order to vanquish their old tribal enemies. If New Zealand is to accept its psat history, I hope it will accept all that too because they don't appear to have done so in the case of North America. The narrative continues to be that the White man brought destruction to an otherwise idyylic land where no conflict or atrocity existed, and that resistance to settlers was immediate, unbroken and total unity against foreign ways and peoples characterised it from start to finish. It didn't. It applies not only to those parts of the world, but also to India and most of the examples that are dragged up as something to bash the white man about.

I don't think NZ holds a romanticised view of it's past. The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in all sorts of facets of NZ life, from school to local bodies, to laws. The atrocities are acknowledged, the things you bring up are recognised.

As with nearly all these things, the white man or coloniser did indeed end up with the bigger slice of the pie, so the white man or coloniser (they weren't always white) deserves a bit of criticism.

Fiji is perhaps the shining exception. Colonised by the British, wise men drew up a constitution that to this day has protected native rights. Despite a few military coups and changes to the constitution, the original aim of it remains. Only 5% of the total land area is freehold. Nobody, not even indigenous Fijians, can buy any other land; it is either government land or native land held in trust. The native land remains with the tribes for their perpetual use and they can never sell it.

Fiji has the slight blemish of the imported Indian workers. This was a common British Colonial practice in areas where the locals were able to live very comfortably without slaving their guts out. Indians were brought in to Fiji, Malaysia, West Indies and other areas to do the hard yakka. In Fiji, their presence has caused a few commotions in the political scene.

[Seastallion]

"15% Maori"? Full blood or perhaps with as little as a "token" amount Maori blood in them?

1/16 Maori by blood gives you claim.

[Seastallion]

As with nearly all these thingss, history records as much collaboration with foreign settlers as there was resistance, either for personal gain, or embracing foreign methods or in order to create alliances with settlers in order to vanquish their old tribal enemies. If New Zealand is to accept its psat history, I hope it will accept all that too because they don't appear to have done so in the case of North America. The narrative continues to be that the White man brought destruction to an otherwise idyylic land where no conflict or atrocity existed, and that resistance to settlers was immediate, unbroken and total unity against foreign ways and peoples characterised it from start to finish. It didn't. It applies not only to those parts of the world, but also to India and most of the examples that are dragged up as something to bash the white man about.

I don't think NZ holds a romanticised view of it's past. The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in all sorts of facets of NZ life, from school to local bodies, to laws. The atrocities are acknowledged, the things you bring up are recognised.

As with nearly all these things, the white man or coloniser did indeed end up with the bigger slice of the pie, so the white man or coloniser (they weren't always white) deserves a bit of criticism.

Fiji is perhaps the shining exception. Colonised by the British, wise men drew up a constitution that to this day has protected native rights. Despite a few military coups and changes to the constitution, the original aim of it remains. Only 5% of the total land area is freehold. Nobody, not even indigenous Fijians, can buy any other land; it is either government land or native land held in trust. The native land remains with the tribes for their perpetual use and they can never sell it.

Fiji has the slight blemish of the imported Indian workers. This was a common British Colonial practice in areas where the locals were able to live very comfortably without slaving their guts out. Indians were brought in to Fiji, Malaysia, West Indies and other areas to do the hard yakka. In Fiji, their presence has caused a few commotions in the political scene.

The Indians were brought in because the Fijians had no work ethic.....they would work, get paid, then not come back to work untill they'd run out of tobacco.

The Indian presence in Fiji has always been tolerated. It was only after an election that a sore loser made wild claims about Indians will end up owning all the land which resulted in a coup, that there was a perception that Indians caused friction. They never did, even though just before the first coup they numbered nearly 50% of the population. As I mentioned earlier, the 5% of land being freehold is solidly in the constitution. It's land ownership that has the potential to cause arguments.

[nottocus]

"15% Maori"? Full blood or perhaps with as little as a "token" amount Maori blood in them?

1/16 Maori by blood gives you claim.

1/32 I think. My mum was 1/32 and she got a small amount of money every year.

I'm 1/64. Applied to be a Maori but was told 1/64 wasn't enough.

Damm. All I wanted was a monetary handout and some land.

[Wat dee]

New Zealand only has one Religion, and it is a code they obey, it's their God.

Rugby.

At least the's one god in the world that don't preach hatred.

[Daniel Ingalls]

Yea, I'm all for the Maori tribes to receive over 128 million dollars and land grants. Welcome to the new Maori casino, buy your tax free cigarettes, and hand made trinkets. We are really coming up on top of this ladder of success......We've come a long way!

[attento]

New Zealand only has one Religion, and it is a code they obey, it's their God.

Rugby.

and just to emphasise that Kiwis are not white racist, they call their world-beating team " the All Blacks "

In which country would it be acceptable to call their international team " the All Whites " ?

Edited March 16, 2015 by attento

[dragonfly94]

Why are Maori's often referred to as mongrels then? even in the media- oh I think a mongrel did it, heard that myself on the radio when some campers got attacked camping on Maori land

[Pete Beale]

Why are Maori's often referred to as mongrels then? even in the media- oh I think a mongrel did it, heard that myself on the radio when some campers got attacked camping on Maori land

If they attack people then they fully deserve to be called mongrels.

[nottocus]

New Zealand only has one Religion, and it is a code they obey, it's their God.

Rugby.

and just to emphasise that Kiwis are not white racist, they call their world-beating team " the All Blacks "

In which country would it be acceptable to call their international team " the All Whites " ?

Answer: New Zealand

[Cats4ever]

As with nearly all these thingss, history records as much collaboration with foreign settlers as there was resistance, either for personal gain, or embracing foreign methods or in order to create alliances with settlers in order to vanquish their old tribal enemies. If New Zealand is to accept its psat history, I hope it will accept all that too because they don't appear to have done so in the case of North America. The narrative continues to be that the White man brought destruction to an otherwise idyylic land where no conflict or atrocity existed, and that resistance to settlers was immediate, unbroken and total unity against foreign ways and peoples characterised it from start to finish. It didn't. It applies not only to those parts of the world, but also to India and most of the examples that are dragged up as something to bash the white man about.

I don't think NZ holds a romanticised view of it's past. The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in all sorts of facets of NZ life, from school to local bodies, to laws. The atrocities are acknowledged, the things you bring up are recognised.

As with nearly all these things, the white man or coloniser did indeed end up with the bigger slice of the pie, so the white man or coloniser (they weren't always white) deserves a bit of criticism.

Fiji is perhaps the shining exception. Colonised by the British, wise men drew up a constitution that to this day has protected native rights. Despite a few military coups and changes to the constitution, the original aim of it remains. Only 5% of the total land area is freehold. Nobody, not even indigenous Fijians, can buy any other land; it is either government land or native land held in trust. The native land remains with the tribes for their perpetual use and they can never sell it.

Fiji has the slight blemish of the imported Indian workers. This was a common British Colonial practice in areas where the locals were able to live very comfortably without slaving their guts out. Indians were brought in to Fiji, Malaysia, West Indies and other areas to do the hard yakka. In Fiji, their presence has caused a few commotions in the political scene.

The Indians were brought in because the Fijians had no work ethic.....they would work, get paid, then not come back to work untill they'd run out of tobacco.

The Indian presence in Fiji has always been tolerated. It was only after an election that a sore loser made wild claims about Indians will end up owning all the land which resulted in a coup, that there was a perception that Indians caused friction. They never did, even though just before the first coup they numbered nearly 50% of the population. As I mentioned earlier, the 5% of land being freehold is solidly in the constitution. It's land ownership that has the potential to cause arguments.

Perhaps I didn't make myself totally clear. You say the Fijians had no work ethic, I at least intimated, that because it was a rich and abundant land, they had no need to work a solid 12 hour day. I mentioned a few commotions politically, you jumped on about tolerance and a possible reference to Rambuka (sic).

[lungbing]

Were not the Maori themselves fairly recent immigrants to New Zealand?